This Is Disgusting - Extreme Makeover Show

Gather App
Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

National Taxpayers Union

A quick search of NTU's founder James Dale Davidson reveals a bit of a slant...bullshit propaganda is a better description. Davidson was also a major funding source for the Arkansas Project, dedicated to ending the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Lovely resume.

Let's try to find a source for information that isn't skewed one way or another. Sadly, it doesn't seem possible anymore. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine!
 
Get your ass a bullshit government job....

....??? Mondo Retirement??

No, a government job does not pay a mondo retirement.

After working 34 years I can collect 60% of my salary.

And my salary is not much. I know people working in food service and blue collar jobs that make way more than I do.

I will be 74 if I put in the full 34 years.

No way that's going to happen.

The retirement system you're talking about Toggle was done away with. It used to be 20 years, then 25 and you got 90% of your salary. It was changed again in 1984 to the package I got and next year it changes again.

I work in a State system, not the federal one. Our health insurance is going to an HMO and the retirement plan for new hires is little of nothing, you have to open a 401K and that's your retirement package.

It used to be that you took a lower salary in exchange for the retirement and health benefits. That's all gone out the door. Except for the teachers union. They still have the golden parachute plan.

It seems we are all living under that old Chinese curse..."may you live in interesting times"
 
Case in point:

Nassau County, New York State (Long Island).

here was a TV new-article on this on local news. After working for the county for ONE YEAR, one is enttitled to medical care for life. This has been found to be a $640,000 expense to taxpayers /value to the recipient.

I'm not clear on whether this is care upon retirement or from the day of hire into perpetuity.

Let me say this: public servants in my area are paid WAY above relaistic (or pvt. industry) wages and the benefits are there too. TAXES are a F--- story here.

I am SERIOUSLY pondering a change of employers.
 
Low interest loans.

Quite a few of these were sold to unsuspecting customers by unscrupulous lenders who did not inform them of nuances such as "deferred interest", better known as "negative amortization". So, quite a few people who closed with these loan products had no idea that the low payment rate they were paying was not the full interest being charged, nor did they know that the remainder was accruing to the principal. The loan was growing LARGER, and they had no clue. Although anyone who took that loan had the option of paying more than the minimum rate to prevent this, they would stick to the lowest payment amount required. The lenders knew this would be the case, and thrived on it to get the business.

In 2005 I worked as a loan officer in NYC, and the company I worked for enticed quite a few people to call in by advertising those low rates. I made sure people knew that they were not the full rates of interest. I also told them about the negative amortization that came along with it should they pay only the minimum amount; they needed to be informed. Needless to say, very few people remained on the phone after that. Of the ones that did, I could not convince them to go with a 30 year fixed, a product I prefer, because they were so disillusioned by the ad.

Ultimately I left the company after a few months, and moved on to commercial transactions. Now that has slowed down to a crawl, and I have to get another job.

Of the clients I closed, I made sure they were fully qualified to do so, and that they were fully informed of the loan products they took for their mortgages.

Have a good one,
James
 
Things were pretty good during the Clinton years....

Surplus vs. deficit: just a couple of the many things we didn't have to worry about during those wonderful years. Don't care which one we had (probably had both depending on how you look at it) because times were happier!

I was really looking forward to 8 more Clinton years!

Chuck
p.s.- what was that family thinking? Oh, wait.... they weren't!!!!!
 
One of the problems with these people is now is NOT the time to be opening a construction business. I'm willing to bet that if they waited until times got better (whenever THAT may be!) they would have had a better chance.
 
Numbers aren't partisan... The fairness doc will not change the numbers each candidate proposes to spend, nor will it change how they are going to raise the cash...
 
Owning a construction business is one of those things like running a laundromat or some such. Many people think all one has to do is throw up a sign or take out an advert, get a few machines/tools and perhaps workers and money will roll in, when the truth is very much the other way.

One must have proper licenses, training and experience, and even then there is so promise one will break even, much less earn any money. More so today when in many markets cheap Mexican labour is pushing down prices for many contractors. This is happening in all trades, from plumbing, dry wall, and right across the line.

You'd never get me to put my house on the line for a husband's pipe dream of starting his own construction business. For goodness sakes hasn't this family seen any of the old "Honeymooners" episodes to know such things always end in disaster?

L.
 
But the numbers are skewed, none of that information presented takes into account changes in present spending, budget cuts, etc. Plucking numbers out of the air whether they are correct or not isn't necessarily the whole truth.

These things are meant to inflame and evoke a response - targeted toward their partisan ideas still lies under the surface.
 
Loan fraud

I have sympathy for anyone that failed to comprehend their loan documents. Around here, it seems that most of the folks that are losing their house are doing so because they either refinanced their house to pay credit cards or they have committed some form of loan fraud.

My "ghetto storefront" building that I bought in April of last year for $48,500, sold in 2004 for $150,000. That building has NEVER been worth that. The neighbor told me that the folks that bought it also bought three other properties for $150,000. Right after doing so, all the folks involved had new cars, etc. I would guess that $10,000 was spent on that building in those three years. Around the time of foreclosure, all the first floor windows were broken, a pipe burst and nearly flooded the place, then the copper was stolen.

The lender, appraiser, and the people that took out that loan need to be shot not bailed out. This type of situation isn't that rare and has devalued the entire area. My other issue would be all the "house flippers" and their crappy work.
 
You Know This What Gets Me

Here you have highly rated shows like that man on Bravo who has a show called "Flipping Out". Has anyone ever seen this show or the previous series? It is all about some rather grand sort of man (with weird looking lips), that goes around bitching and abusing his workers, whose only career is flipping real estate in the most over leveraged housing market in the United States, California

L

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipping_Out
 
Flipper Disasters

A friend of ours is a real estate agent. She hates dealing with most of the house "flippers". Most of them do not do it right. They use cheap materials, cheap paint, throw things together and in the end the place looks little better than it did when they bought it. Then they get all upset when she tells them, no you did not increase the value of this house by $100K.
Some of the things she sees are uneven tile floors, miss matched carpet, wavy walls, shoddy cabinet installations, ugly paint colors, etc.
 
House flipping

When I bought my building, the building across the street was also in foreclosure. The building was two storefronts and one apartment, now converted into three apartments in 2002. Since the rehab was the cheapest possible and the owner was an investor, the building was full of the worst tenants, foreclosed on, vandalized, etc.

It sold last year and was quickly rehabbed! The replaced the stolen plumbing, painted the bad siding, and slapped a for sale sign on it. Since it's been for sale for a year, they now have rented it to some of the shadiest tenants you'd ever want to see. Hmmm, maybe it will get foreclosed on again.
 
I bought my first (and current) house in '97. At that time I had a friend of a friend handle the real estate transaction (it was a probate sale) and a friend of his (and a former client of my former small computer consulting business) handle the loan at a local bank. There were so many documents to sign at the realtor's office that I didn't read through all of them, just trusted the friend. He pointed out some minor non-standard clauses in the loan documentation, nothing major though. At that time I paid 1 point plus closing costs 8.25% interest on the loan, a 30 year fixed. Over the years I refinanced down, through a series of no-closing cost 30 year and then 15 year mortgages, and got the monthly payments about $250 less than at the start, plus the effective loan term wound up being 22 years, the current fixed rate of 4.875. I don't know if I would have been able to maintain my sanity through the initial purchase if I didn't simply trust the realtor and banker - and I am capable of understanding the legalese. So I can surely understand why a 1st time home buyer during the "boom" could easily be misled by unscrupulous realtors and loan brokers.

I wonder how common the stories are of people being swindled out of their homes by unscrupulous loan officers. Just this week there was a local news story about a woman who was losing her home because she refinanced to take $10,000 out of it. Turned out the papers she signed transferred the title to the loan agent - so she wound up selling the house to him for $10,000. I would have thought there would be laws against that sort of thing.
 
A few years ago a "poor" family had their home rehabed by the Extreme Makeover crew.turned out the homes tax value shot up so high the owners could no longer afford the taxes-the last I heard of it-the owners were trying to sue the ABC and Extreme makeover for the tax costs and court costs,etc.So---Its a dream show like those game shows full of wonderful prizes--but guess WHO pays the "gift taxes" or increased taxes on the home when it reappraised by the State and County the home is in?Sadly in the Exteme Makover case above the folks lost their home.they had to live with their parents.In the case outlined at the beginning of this thread-you takes your chances if you put up your house as collateral.Folks-it boils down too--a home is to LIVE IN--not an investment.you buy or rent it because you and your family have to LIVE in it.investing in home nowadays is risky as the housing situation shows out.that is the problem with Extreme Makeover--their improvements are greater than what average folks would do-so it drastically increases the tax value of the place.
 
Here in California we have property tax limits - called Prop 13. For those not familiar with it, Prop 13 limits the amount that a property tax assessment can rise each year - 2%. The initial "base" assessment is the price of the home if bought after about 1978. Prior to that, it's the assessed value at the time that the prop was passed (about 1978). I think also that the tax rate is limited to 1% unless 2/3 of the local electorate approve an increase. Consequently two similar homes next door to each other can have much different tax bills. The one that was purchased years ago and not improve can be paying 1/2 or less the annual property taxes compared to one that was purchased for a high price during the housing boom.

Upgrades/additions/etc. will trigger a tax reassessment, but only insofar as the added value to the property (not to the market value of the entire property). But of course tearing down the old house and putting up a new one would probably trigger a full reassessment.

For homes that are "upside down", that is that have decreased in market value since purchase, the county assessor can be petitioned to adjust the tax assessment down to market value.

Another cool feature is that if one inherits a property, and lives in it, then the old tax base is also inherited. Additionally, after a certain age (55? 60?) one can "downgrade" to a new property of the same size or smaller, and retain the old (if lower) tax basis of the previous property.

The main problem with prop 13 is that it also protects commercial properties. Companies have exploited loopholes in the law that allow them to buy and sell properties without triggering a tax reassessment to market value. As I recall this is done by having a minority ownership stay constant throughout all the buying and selling. It's a scam that hurts local governments which rely upon property tax revenues for things like schools. But politicians don't want to close this loophole because for one thing the commercial real estate lobby would oppose it, and also it would mean touching a law, Prop 13, which is sacrosanct.
 
Laundress:

Yes, I have seen a few episodes recently of "Flipping Out". Man, that guy Jeff is something else! What is wrong with him? If there ever was a drama queen, this is it! And such a short temper!
About those lips... they remind me of Janice Dickenson's lips. Since she's a nut case too, maybe they are related in some way?
I don't think anyone has lips like that naturally.
 
Have a friend who has had difficulty purchasing a home lately. Everything was arranged, offer accepted, but the bank at the last minute turned down the loan because the current owners have only had the house a few months, less than a year. The bank considers that to be flipping and refuse to loan on flipped houses, even though apparently this wasn't a flip deal, just a change in ownership.

I recall that for a time during the housing boom around here one could purchase a fixer-upper and sell it for a big profit a few months later without doing much of anything... "as is"... when a neighbor's small home went up for sale in 2000, the street was clogged with cars of anxious buyers wanting to get in on the action... home purchased for $135k in '95 went for $250K in 2000... and it would have gone for $500k by the end of the boom in 2005... now it's probably back down to around $350k.
 
Smart Buying Helps

The story about the "Extreme Makeover" home was very interesting, but sometimes reality is closer than you think.
Back in 1999 (ah, the good old days), I decided it was time to buy my own home. So after looking at a number of condos, I purchased one for about 54 thousand dollars--a relatively roomy one bedroom unit next to the clubhouse and pool.
Unfortunately, the developer at the time cut a number of corners, so I had some problems with my unit. Some of my neighbors had it even worse. We ended up filing a class-action suit, and settling out of court. As part of the homeowners association board at the time (and I still am), we used our various strengths to make the needed repairs--yanking the bad air conditioning systems and hot water heat that leaked with new heat pumps; upgraded plumbing and installed new hot water heaters; removed mold from affected units; redid the landscaping and drain systems to improve drainage and keep water away from the buildings--and a number of other changes. It was a rough time, but we now live in good, solid units; our finances are in fine shape and we are ready to handle the future once the Las Vegas housing market improves (sadly, a number of condo units on the market have gone unsold). But I'm owning for the long haul, and I know things will eventually improve. After all, you can't make more land.
 
wow

just read therough all these e mails and once again we see what we have missed all along......

Huckabee said it best, start teaching finances in the fifth grade and continue it until graduation.

These people are only guilty of ignorance or non-knowledge.

Why are we so stupid in out society, becuase we grow up wrong. Mommsy and daddy pay for everything and then you hit 18 and are slammed into the world of finance.

IF and its a big IF MAYBE someone along the tenth grade showed you how to balance a check book in some socail studies class.

In my school expierence they taught us History, reading, english, math hell even two and a half years on how American Government works. Then ofcorse those extra things to keep funding going like forgein languages and lets not forget the passion of sports and even delving into health and sexual studies ......but not one damn thing about finances.

If I was the type to go for and mutiply the human race I would set my offspring down and say guess what ...we got homework.
I wish my parents had..........this school of hard knocks makes for some sad and sorry graduations....been there , done that, still slipping back once in a while but getting wiser all the time.
 
Root of the problem are the well intentioned but misguided policies of the United States, and local governments that assume every person should own a home.

Such a notion while laudable is hardly accurate nor totally healthy. While home owners may tend to be slightly more stable in a given community than say renters, that is not always the case. Indeed there are persons of their own choosing whom have lived as renters in their communites for decades, are they somehow any less valuable because they do not own property?

Sadly as with England, the property holding classes have been so sucessful in keeping federal state and local governemnts in fear of them revolting, a sane and rational policy will never happen.

Personally one would like to see something along the lines of some European countries where one is allowed a "housing" credit that includes some sort of deduction, credit or expense for rent, not just everything geared towards home owners. Of course there will be allot of noise about how such a move would decrease housing prices in many areas, but here is a question posed by myself and many worthy economists; why is it that certain people always want home prices to keep increasing? Part of the problems we see today are the fact elaborate and dicey plans were hatched to enable persons to purchase homes they couldn't afford. Wages in the United States for many have not begun to keep up with inflation on a yearly average adjusted basis. This means people have to stretch, scrimp, if not out right scheme to "afford" a home. It's either that or massive amounts of favourable tax treatments must be put in place to prop up the whole business.
 
Every now and then, I see some article that suggests that not everyone should own. These articles sometimes talk about advantages of people not being tied down--they are more free to move to support job changes and shifts in the economy. (Which raises a question in my mind--why is business and economy the most important thing in America? What happened to PEOPLE?) I've also seen talk about the economic advantages of renting.

But such talk is drowned out by the Everyone Must Own! brigade.

And if suddenly owning a home ceased to be important, it would cause a lot of economic pain for certain groups. Mortgage people. Real estate people. Even Home Depot. (Renters won't be buying the supplies for that fancy new bathroom!) So, you can assume that these groups will do all they can to make sure that owning a home is something we all aspire to. Even for those who can only afford a one bedroom, one three quarter bathroom house in the bad part of the city. Furnished with stuff that was rejected by Goodwill, and retrieved by the home owner in the dead of night from the Dumpster.
 
It depends...

I rented my residences for most of my life, until I was about 45. Finally I found a unique place with a large lot and a large workshop and I knew I had to buy. At the same time I was benefitting from the start of the high tech boom and was able to fund the 20% down payment entirely from stock sales. My only regret is that I didn't purchase a home earlier, but it is what it is.

I had a LOT of pent up homeowner yearnings that put me on cloud nine once I made the purchase. I didn't mind that the place needed a lot of fixing up - it was all exciting. Now, 10 years later, I'm a bit jaded on the whole home/yard maintenance/repair thing, but I would not want to go back to renting again unless I was physically unable to take live on the property.

But I can certainly understanding that home ownership isn't for everyone, esp those who don't want to be bothered with the mundane aspects or the long-term responsibility of owning one's home. It can be psychologically more comforting, in a way, just to call the landlord and have them deal with it... albeit at a price. And when you think of it, there are plenty of services available to take the bite out of home ownership as well: gardening, house cleaning, remodeling contractors, interior decorators, even de-cluttering specialists. I still prefer to do all that myself, but it's becoming more and more apparent that there is a limit and things can pile up before you notice.
 
Real estate people are in "pain" now?

As for renovating and decorating rental apartments, what makes you think renters live in hovels and or wait around for their landlords to do require repairs and or spruce up the place.

There are many, many hardware, decorating and such stores in Manhattan, including two huge Home Depot stores, which then would seem odd since nearly 50% if not more of the housing stock on that island is rental.

Owing property and or a home makes demands upon persons not all are willing to abide. For one thing property and homes must be maintained, lawns must be mowed, and so forth. There are persons who because of their lifestyle, or preference simply do not wish to be bothered with such things.

Have seen studies by reputable economists showing that even allowing for inflation, people putting the standard down payment on a $2K home, into the stock market will come out ahead investment wise against owning a home, assuming one held those investments for the long term (10, 20 or 30 years), which is what home ownership is supposed to be about.

Too many people think simply buying a home is the end of the line, but there is a reason homes are called the "money pit". Like a selfish lover it can provide pleasure, but can also take, take, take, and demand constant attention.

L.
 
Wow, some real

horror stories here. I learned the banking stuff growing up. My grandparents brought me up and taught me how to manage money as I grew up. They had some very "old fashioned" notions about money (save, pay as you go, no credit terms) and I believe their advice has served me well.

I cannot imagine not wanting to own your home and land.

I grew up on a farm that had been in the family for several generations.

I have owned several houses in my 44 years. I never liked the idea of renting.

I bought my current home almost 3 years ago and I hope it is the one I grow old with. There is something special about really old houses like mine. It was vacant for 12 years before I bought it, a historic house that evokes the start of this nation, built in the late 1790's by a man who served with George Washington in our Revolution against England.

I have worked my a$$ off for the past 2 years restoring the house. I cannot imagine buying a personal dwelling property without having a sound financial base.

The thing that strikes me most is that parents are not teaching personal financial responsibility as children grow up. I always thought that was part of basic education -at home.

Modern pop culture brings out some sad aspects of society....

Reality television.....
 
I don't think renters live in hovels...

But realistically, the amount a renter is willing to put into a property is limited. How limited depends on the person and the circumstances. Even a short term renter is likely to install a $2 light switch, if he or she can. A bit of new paint is possible. A new $50,000 kitchen? Not too terribly likely.

There is no doubt from what I know that there are economic advantages to renting.

It can be a better choice on other other grounds. I know someone who has owned at least two homes that were sold in far worse condition than when he bought them. One had to be sold as a fixer-upper. The other wasn't a fixer upper, but realistically needed some work before it could actually be sold--some to get a mortgage, and then a lot more to bring the house into line with the standards and requirements of the neighborhood. The guy who lived next door commented, to me, that he hoped his former neighbor never owned a house again.
 
A new $50,000 kitchen? Not too terribly likely

Then you need to get out more.

There are persons all over areas such as Manhattan that have probably spent near or over that amount putting in new kitchens, renovating bathrooms, and doing over the entire apartment in general up to and including new electrical wiring.

Is it normal? No, but it does happen, especially if one is lucky enough to have an apartment that suits at a decent rent.

L.
 
The question, I guess, is how many people who, as renters, would be willing to put major money into a rental property. That is, from the view of Home Depot, and other such places, would renters spend, in total, as much or more than home owners?

It's hard to say. And I'm sure there a zillion variables. One is where one lives--New York is a different market than Chicago or Seattle.

Right now, my part of the world, there would be a view that making major improvements would be throwing money away. Unless, of course, there was some agreement with the property owner for reduced rent.
 
the route I took to homeownership on nearly nothing,

I was living in an apartment made from an old victorian house. There were three units two down one up.

if anyone was on the premisses in any bathroom shower another tenant had better not flush the toilet.

I put up with two sets of couples on the otherside of our common wall having sex.

Lights flickered constantly and the downstairs units were on the same meter so I
had to face these "having sex' couples regularly to discuss the light bill.

There was no privacy..............for anyone.

the cielings leaked when the people upstairs drained thier tub or flushed.The sewer system could not handle five gallons of toilet water. The intelligent land lord told them why go right ahead if you wanna hook up a washer up there. The plumbing having trouble with 5 gallons can surly handle a washer spewing out 22....well we wont go into the disaster that lead to.

for all this pleasure I paid 650 a month.........a month after I left the place caught on fire surpriseingly not electrical but by a loose gas line due from settlement.

I left there and bought a thousand dollar 1974 great lakes mobile home..........and it looked like a 1974 great lakes mobile home that you would pay a thousand dollars for.

It had holes in the floor, holes in the cieling, many broken windows and a back door that would not shut. The people I bought it from allowed two dogs and three cats to do thier stuff wherever, Im sure it wasnt even habitable by county standards.

But we painted everything, cleaned it all and stript the carpets out. Then room by room I started to remodle it. I gutted the entire thing and sheetrocked it. I thought this would take 6 months but it took nearly four years but I loved every minute of it. Things I ran into I hadnt planned on addressing were plumbing issues and electricty issues. I even wound up replaceing the furnace.

keeping all reciepts I spent about 4500 dollars (none on labor)
because I did all that myself.Today people walk in and say wow this is a trailor? The only clue is that its an oblong box.
Its appraised by realtors at about 20,000, 19 times more than what I paid for it. and if it was on private land itd be even more.

people walking thru and seeing the old pictures say why did you do all this? I smile, I say for 8 years now my houseing has been under two hundred dollars.(lot rent)

Ive had two years off from remodling but now Im looking for a cheap house that needs rescuing.Well see what happens.
 

Similar threads

servis-dream
from a crazy idea to blueprints, the story of PiWosh's WSR184 (2024-2025)
Replies
5
Views
559
servis-dream
servis-dream
Wurlitzer155BandOrgan
My Introduction
Replies
19
Views
979
Alan
Alan
W
weird behavior of the fan on my Bosch Home Professional tumble dryer, i'm curious to learn about it
Replies
7
Views
666
logixx
logixx
G
dishomat dreams and ideas
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
3K
maytaga806
M
H
Speed Queen TV2000wn - early review / permanent lid switch fix
Replies
5
Views
2K
appledude1
A

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top